health pesticides surveys chainat

Strengthening Farmers’ IPM in Pesticide-Intensive Areas
IPM DANIDA
Pesticides-Health survey
Data of 123 farmers in Chainat, Thailand
August-September 2004
IPM DANIDA 63 November 2004
Contents
Summary ....................................................................................................................3
Introduction................................................................................................................4
Data of 123 farmers ...................................................................................................5
Type of farmers in this survey ...............................................................................5
Analysis of pesticides used ....................................................................................5
Analysis of the volume and frequency of pesticide use.........................................7
Analysis of spraying behavior ...............................................................................7
Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning ..........................................................8
Observations of pesticide storage and disposal of empty containers...................10
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................10
2
Summary
A survey on the health effects of pesticides was conducted by farmers in Chainat
province. This survey yielded 123 sets of data which are presented in this report.
The majority of the farmers in this survey grows sugarcane (94%) and rice (46%).
Among the 123 farmers, 22 different pesticides were being used. These include 3
chemicals belonging to WHO toxicity classes Ia and Ib. The list includes 3 chemicals
that are currently registered in Thailand but on the “watch list”. Endosulfan is the
most common of these watch list chemicals and is used by 15% of the farmers in
Chainat. Almost all farmers (85%) use the controversial herbicide paraquat. No
banned chemicals were found during this survey in Chainat.
Analysis of spraying behavior shows that almost all farmers get easily exposed to
pesticides. 76% of the farmers get wet during spraying, 41% works with leaking
equipment and 87% of the farmers drink (87%) or eat (27%) during the spraying
operations.
About 80% of the farmers use gloves during spraying, but only 13% use gloves when
they are mixing the chemicals. This is a surprising result, because it shows that most
farmers do not take sufficient precaution at the moment when they are handling the
undiluted chemicals.
As a result of their exposure to pesticides farmers often experience signs or symptoms
of poisoning. The majority of the farmers (63%) had moderate symptoms of
poisoning. Two farmers had experienced severe symptoms of pesticide poisoning.
Storage of pesticides and disposal of empty containers were found to be especially a
risk factor for children and farm animals. 47% of the farmers have a way of storage
that is not safe for children and 57% of the farmers put children at risk through the
disposal of empty containers.
Farmers can reduce their risks in several ways, especially by reducing the frequency
and volume of spraying, and by switching from highly toxic chemicals to chemicals
with lower acute toxicity. This would require IPM training for the farmers so that they
can manage their crops with fewer and less toxic pesticides. Another way to reduce
risks is by taking better precautions during the handling and storage of pesticides and
the disposal of empty containers.
The Thai government can also help reducing risks for farmers by banning the most
toxic chemicals. The most toxic chemicals that were used in Chainat include
Parathion-methyl, Endosulfan, Paraquat, Dichlorvos and Dicrotophos. Banning these
chemicals would ensure that the farmers will in due course switch to safer
alternatives. Since October 2004 (about one month after this survey) the use of
Endosulfan and Parathion-methyl has been banned.
3
Introduction
The IPM DANIDA project has in the past two years organized several training
courses for groups of farmers on “the health effects of pesticides”. During these
courses the farmers learn to make a so called “cross-sectional survey”, which is a one-
time survey of the “pesticide-health” situation in their own farming community. The
training helps the farmers to understand what is going on in their community and
understand how and when they are most likely to be contaminated by chemicals. The
training model used was developed by Ms. Helen Murphy.
(See website: www.ipmthailand.org/en/pesticides/pesticides_survey.htm)
During the 5-day training the participating farmers learn about various aspects of
pesticide use. The training includes 5 major topics:
1. Identification of chemicals
Farmers learn to identify the types of pesticides used and to classify them
according to their acute toxicity. Farmers learn to read and understand labels, and
understand the colored warning signs on containers. They also learn about the
toxicity classification used by WHO and they learn about the different chemical
families (organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, etc.).
2. Spraying behavior
Farmers learn to make observations of how the pesticides are used. They observe
and analyze the protective measures that are taken during mixing and application.
They observe how they can get contaminated during the handling of pesticides.
3. Storage of pesticides and disposal of containers
Farmers learn to make observations of how storage of pesticides are disposal of
empty containers can form a risk for children, food, water, farm animals, etc.
4. Frequency and volume of pesticide use
Farmers calculate the volume of pesticides that are used during one year and they
calculate the frequency of applications (number of risk days per year).
5. Signs and symptoms of poisoning
Farmers learn to recognize signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning and how
they differ from other signs and symptoms of poor health. For example they
discuss about differences between sweating because of hard labor and sweating as
a result of contamination with poisons.
During the 5-day program the farmers collects data about themselves, and each of
them practices data collection with one other farmer. After the 5-day program the
trained farmers get the task to each interview and observe 3 or more of their
neighboring farmers. When they have completed this survey, the farmers meet again
to analyze the data and to formulate their own conclusions.
This process of making a survey in their own community helps the farmers to make
decisions that reduce the risks of pesticide use. For example they quickly understand
that they can reduce risks by avoiding the most toxic substances (WHO class Ia and
Ib) in favor if less toxic products (class III or IV). They also have learned how to
4
better protect themselves during spray operations and how to improve their storage of
pesticides and the disposal of empty containers.
In August and September 2004 a pesticide-health survey was conducted by a group of
farmers in Chainat. This resulted in complete data sets for 123 farmers. This report
presents these data.
Data of 123 farmers
Data sets of 123 farmers in Chainat province were entered in a computerized
database. All these data were collected in August and September 2004. The following
tables give an overview of these data.
Type of farmers in this survey
The majority of the 123 farmers grow sugarcane and rice. 18 of these farmers had
been previously trained in an IPM farmer field school.
Table 1 – Crops grown by 123 farmers
Crops No. of farmers % of farmers
Sugarcane 116 94.3
Rice 56 45.5
Fruits 4 3.3
Water melon 3 2.4
Other crops 10 8.1
Total * 123
* Some farmers grow more than one type of crop
Table 2 – Gender of 123 farmers
Gender No. of farmers % of farmers
Male 104 84.6
Female 19 15.4
Total 123
Analysis of pesticides used
The farmers make an overview of all the pesticides that are being used. These
chemicals are then grouped according to their toxicity classification and according to
the chemical family to which they belong.
Table 3 – Overview of pesticides used by 123 farmers in Chainat
Toxicity No. of
class Common name Chemical family Status farmers
Ia Parathion-methyl * Organophosphates Registered (on watch list) 7
Ib Dichlorvos Organophosphates Registered 1
Dicrotophos Organophosphates Registered (on watch list) 1
II Carbosulfan Carbamates Registered 3
Chlorpyrifos Organophosphates Registered 4
Cypermethrin Pyrethroids Registered 1
Dimethoate Organophosphates Registered 1
Endosulfan * Organochlorines Registered (on watch list) 18
Paraquat dichloride Paraquat Registered 105
III Alachlor - Registered 65
5
Toxicity No. of
class Common name Chemical family Status farmers
Ametryn - Registered 51
Propanil - Registered 1
Triadimefon - Registered 1
IV Atrazine - Registered 3
(= U) Butachlor - Registered 1
Carbendazim - Registered 2
Mancozeb Thiocarbamates Registered 2
Not 2,4-D, dimethyl
listed ammonium - Registered 3
2,4-D, isobutyl ester - Registered 21
2,4-D, sodium salt - Registered 29
Beta-cypermethrin Pyrethroids Registered 2
Glyphosate-
isopropylammonium - Registered 20
* The use of Parathion-methyl and Endosulfan has been banned in October 2004
Table 4 – Toxicity classification of pesticides used by 123 farmers in Chainat
Toxicity class No. of chemicals No. of farmers % of farmers
Ia 1 7 6
Ib 2 2 2
II 6 107 87
III 4 90 73
U 5 8 7
Not listed 4 60 49
Total 22 123
Table 5 – Chemical families of pesticides used by 123 farmers in Chainat
Chemical family No. of chemicals No. of farmers % of farmers
Paraquat 1 105 85
Organochlorines 1 18 15
Organophosphates 5 12 10
Pyrethroids 2 3 2
Carbamates 1 3 2
Thiocarbamates 1 2 2
Other 11 106 86
Total 22 123
Among the 123 farmers, 22 different pesticides were being used. These include 3
chemicals belonging to WHO toxicity classes Ia and Ib. The list includes 3 chemicals
that are registered in Thailand but on the “watch list”. Endosulfan is the most
common of these watch list chemicals and is used by 15% of the farmers in Chainat.
Almost all farmers (85%) use the controversial herbicide paraquat. No banned
chemicals were found during this survey in Chainat.
The use of two pesticides, Parathion-methyl and Endosulfan, has been banned since
October 2004 (which was after the surveys presented in this report).
6
Analysis of the volume and frequency of pesticide use
Farmers calculate the frequency of pesticide use (number of risk days in a year) and
the volume of use.
Table 6 – Number of risk days and volume of pesticide use by 123 farmers in Chainat
Spray days per year Volume per year
Minimum 1 144
Maximum 42 35,440
Average 8.3 4,309
Analysis of spraying behavior
The farmers observe and analyze the spraying behavior of themselves and of other
farmers. The results of these observations are used to start discussions on the risks of
handling pesticides.
Table 7 – Spraying behavior of 123 farmers in Chainat
Spraying behavior No. of farmers % of farmers
Uses gloves when mixing 16 13.0
Uses protective clothes when mixing 4 3.3
Touch eyes when spraying 28 22.8
Touch face when spraying 60 48.8
Gets wet when spraying 93 75.6
Watches wind direction 21 17.1
Equipment is leaking 50 40.7
Smoking while spraying 25 20.3
Eating while spraying 33 26.8
Drinking while spraying 107 87.0
Washing hands and shower after spraying 110 89.4
Wash clothes together with other clothes 14 11.4
Uses 2 types of hats 48 39.0
Uses monkey cap 111 90.2
Uses helmet 0 -
Uses normal cap 1 0.8
Uses big hat 53 43.1
Uses other hat 5 4.1
No hat 1 0.8
Uses eye glasses 41 33.3
Uses cloth mask 59 48.0
Uses sponge mask 21 17.1
Uses mask with filter 0 -
No mask 43 35.0
Shirt with long sleeves 123 100.0
Shirt with short sleeves 0 -
No shirt 0 -
Long pants 122 99.2
Short pants 1 0.8
Cloth gloves 74 60.2
Medical gloves 0 -
Rubber gloves 24 19.5
No gloves 25 20.3
Boots 108 87.8
7
Spraying behavior No. of farmers % of farmers
Canvas shoes 5 4.1
Slippers 2 1.6
Other shoes 3 2.4
No shoes 5 4.1
These data give an idea of how farmers are handling pesticides and the precautions
they take. The surveys show that even though farmers know that pesticides are
poisons, they are often very relaxed and careless when handling the chemicals. Many
farmers are exposed to the chemicals due to leaking equipment and because of drift
during spray operations.
Most farmers don’t realize that they run a very high risk during mixing of the
chemicals because that is the moment that they handle the undiluted chemicals. The
use of gloves at the time when they mix the chemicals is very low (only 13% of the
farmers).
Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning
Farmers carried out health studies to detect signs and symptoms of pesticide
poisoning. They did this by making observations before and after a spraying session.
Data on signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning were analyzed and discussed by
the farmers. Signs and symptoms were grouped in 4 levels (none, mild, moderate and
severe).
Table 8 – Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning of 123 farmers in Chainat
Signs and Symptoms No. of farmers % of farmers
Sweating 63 51.2
Burning nose 16 13.0
Excessive salivation 16 13.0
Burning stinging itchy eyes 9 7.3
Red eyes 7 5.7
Dizziness 75 61.0
Exhausted 75 61.0
Head ache 63 51.2
Dry throat 76 61.8
Short of breath 9 7.3
Shaky heart 49 39.8
Muscle weakness 29 23.6
Skin rashes 24 19.5
Itchy skin 30 24.4
Numbness 13 10.6
Cough 3 2.4
Sore throat 17 13.8
Twitching eyelids 4 3.3
Blurred vision 37 30.1
Nose bleed 1 0.8
Runny nose 9 7.3
Excessive tearing 4 3.3
Insomnia 11 8.9
Tremor 25 20.3
Muscle cramps 15 12.2
8
Signs and Symptoms No. of farmers % of farmers
Malformed Loss fingernails 1 0.8
Staggering gait 8 6.5
Diarrhea 4 3.3
Stomach cramps 8 6.5
Nausea 46 37.4
Chest pain (tightness burning) 15 12.2
Wheezing 2 1.6
Vomiting 14 11.4
Convulsions 2 1.6
Seizure 0 -
Loss of consciousness 1 0.8
Table 9 – Summary signs and symptoms of poisoning of 123 farmers in Chainat
Signs Symptoms Level No. of farmers % of farmers
- none 1 0.8
* mild 42 34.1
** moderate 78 63.4
*** severe 2 1.6
Total 123 100.0
Except for 1 farmer, all farmers had experienced some signs or symptoms of
pesticides poisoning. The majority of farmers (63%) had moderate symptoms and 2
farmers had experienced severe symptoms of poisoning.
A typical case of paraquat poisoning was observed in one farmer who had handled
weeds that were killed with paraquat. Soon after handling the contaminated weeds he
experienced malformed fingernails (see photo below).
Figure 1 - Malformed fingernails after handling weeds that were sprayed with paraquat
9
Blood tests are sometimes carried out to detect if Cholinesterase inhibiting chemicals
are present in the blood, which is an indication of poisoning by organophosphates or
carbamates. The blood test distinguishes 4 levels: 1) normal, 2) safe, 3) risk, and 4)
dangerous. Of the 123 farmers covered in this report only 18 had a blood test. Of
these 18, only 7 had used organophosphates or carbamates. No serious contamination
was detected in this small sample of farmers.
Table 10 - Blood test by 18 farmers
Frequency Percent
Normal 17 94.4
Safe 1 5.6
Risk 0 0.0
Dangerous 0 0.0
Total 18 100.0
Observations of pesticide storage and disposal of empty
containers
Farmers observed the storage of pesticides and the disposal of empty containers to see
how this could form a risk for children and farm animals, and to see how this could
form a risk of contamination of food and drinking water.
Table 11 – Storage of pesticides and disposal of empty containers by 123 farmers in Chainat
No of farmers % of farmers
Storage child safe 65 52.8
Storage food safe 107 87.0
Storage water safe 110 89.4
Storage animal safe 60 48.8
Disposal child safe 53 43.1
Disposal food safe 108 87.8
Disposal water safe 104 84.6
Disposal animal safe 51 41.5
From these figures it is clear that in many cases children and farm animals can easily
come in contact with chemicals. This is especially the case when pesticides are not
kept in locked storage rooms and when empty pesticide containers are carelessly left
behind in the field.
Conclusion
Farmers in Chainat province are regularly exposed to pesticides which results in
frequent experiencing signs and symptoms of poisoning. These problems are partly
due to the types of pesticides used and partly because farmers are not taking the
necessary precautions.
There are several possibilities to improve this situation.
1) Switch to less toxic chemicals
Farmers can considerably reduce their risks by switching from chemicals with a high
toxicity to chemicals with lower toxicity.
10
Chemicals that belong to WHO class Ia and Ib form an unacceptable high risk. The
few farmers in Chainat who still use these chemicals (i.e. Parathion-methyl,
Dichlorvos, and Dicrotophos) can easily reduce their risk by switching to less toxic
insecticides, preferably chemicals belonging to WHO class III or IV (=U). It is
surprising that none of these farmers is currently using Neem, which in many other
locations in Thailand is a quite popular and relatively safe botanical insecticide.
Also Endosulfan and Paraquat should be avoided in favor of less toxic chemicals.
Endosulfan is an Organochlorine insecticide in class II. In Thailand it has been placed
on the watch list and in several countries it has already been banned because of its
hazardous effects. Paraquat, a very popular chemical among sugarcane growers in
Chainat is the most toxic herbicide in Thailand. Farmers can easily reduce risks by
switching to less toxic herbicides.
2) Reduce the use
Farmers can reduce their risk by spraying less frequently and by using lower volumes
of pesticides. But this can only be done if farmers are educated in Integrated Pest
Management so that they learn how to manage the pests with fewer and less toxic
chemicals.
3) Take adequate precautions when handling pesticides
Risk can also be reduced by making sure that contact with the chemicals is avoided as
much as possible. During the pesticide-health training the farmers learn how they get
contaminated and how they can improve their handling of chemicals to minimize
risks. Unfortunately the necessary protective measures are not always easy to follow.
Protective equipment may not be available or it may not be convenient to use it
because of the warm weather conditions in a tropical climate.
4) Banning chemicals
The Thai government can reduce risk by banning the most toxic chemicals. This will
have an immediate positive effect for all farmers in the country. Of the chemicals
used in Chainat, a ban of Parathion-methyl, Endosulfan and Paraquat would be most
effective to reduce the risks for these farmers. Two other highly toxic chemicals,
Dichlorvos and Dicrotophos, should also be banned, but these were only used by very
few farmers in Chainat.
Since October 2004 the use of Parathion-methyl and Endosulfan has already been
banned.
11